Bone-headed Romney appointment

There are several layers to the news regarding the two fire fighters that recently lost there lives.

But I want to focus on one footnote in this matter, as it highlights what kind of appointments Mitt Romney makes, and certainly raises the question of how far he will go in providing political favors insteqad of making appointments based on merit.

I’m talking of course of his judicial appointment who has no understanding of the Constitution.

Romney appointed (6th paragraph of story) Merita Hopkins to a Superior Court judgeship.  I’m sure the fact that Hopkins was Mayor Menino’s chief of staff played no role whatsoever in this “merit-based” appointment.

I agree that a state law was broken by someone in order for these autopsy reports to become public.  But anyone with a college level understanding of our system of government understands, the Constitution trumps all state (and federal) laws.  And the First amendment is pretty clear about Freedom of the Press.  So clear that the US Supreme Court let the NYT and WaPo publish the Pentagon Papers, declaring that there can be no “prior restraint” on a free press and their (and our) free speech. 

Yet when confronted with a simple conflict–upholding a state law or upholding the First Amendment of the US Constitution–Judge Hopkins made the bone-head call and decided to ignore the Constitution.  From the Globe story, Hopkins is quoted as saying:

“I reject the prior restraint argument,” she said. “Even if it was judged a prior restraint on free speech, it’s justified in this case.”

WOW.  Even if it’s free speech, I won’t let it happen!  This is the kind of judges W. Mitt Romney has been appointing to the courts?  Folks at RMG still scream about the boogeyman Judges that Dukakis appointed more than 18 years ago.  But we have here exhibit A that shows what kind of judges Romney will appoint.

About Festus Garvey

  • wavemaker

    Well, actually, not. I would hope not to have expected this sort of cheap shit from you, but you’ve actually outdone yourself.

    It is always a perilous adventure for anyone (even a lawyer — but few are so reckless as to do so) to extend an opinion about an issue of legal complexity with only the knowledge of what is published in the newspaper. Have you seen the papers filed in this case? Do you know what the evidence was? Did you read the legal memoranda from the parties? The Judge’s decision? Do you even know what the issue is???

    Judge Hopkins apparently acted to protect the privacy of  the family of the deceased firefighters from the unlawful dissemination of information that is exempt from the public records law and therefore illegally released. Of what value is a public records law if its enforcement is so easily thwarted by the blanket waving of the Free Press banner?

    You probably are smart enough to know that prior restraint is permissible upon a showing of certain elements. Did you know that, or were you just tossing a bomb (again)with your eyes closed?

    Yesterday, someone chastised EaBo for his headline because it drew a conclusion that was unwarranted and therefore unfair to the deceased firefighter and his family. Creditably, EaBo changed the headline.

    Apparently, you don’t care about the privacy of autopsy information or who disseminates it illegally. Or perhaps you do but you’re too interested in your silly Get Mitt campaign.

    I don’t know Hopkins, but I know plenty of people who do who describe her as a meticulous, no nonsense jurist. I’m betting her ruling adheres scrupulously to the rules of what is permissible prior restraint — but until either you or someone else can review the law and the facts more responsibly, your charge is really outrageous.